Discuss

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

Sorry, Nick, but this conversation with you no longer has any value. Be well.

I think that says more about you than about me.

Thanks for your concern, I wish you peace.

[leikec]

Re: Discuss

I can, and sometimes might believe in things such as a spiritual world. Belief doesn’t equal reality. I also believe there are many realities that are not currently testable. If such things are actually real, our inability to confirm those realities via current scientific knowledge will not disprove anything. There may be a god. Prove it in some scientifically testable way and you’ll get my attention. Until then you are welcome to your belief, but don’t be disappointed if your faith fails to convince me of your opinion.

There is, as far as I can tell, roughly the same amount of scientific proof for the existence of god as there is for the existence of Bigfoot.

Jeff C

[CWSmith]

Re: Discuss

Everyone, I want you to understand. When I began the study of physics, the clear message was (1) physics needs measurement to prove it correct, and (2) physics says nothing about the unmeasurable. There was no question about this and it applies to all branches of science. If you think about it, even evolution goes in search of measured evidence.

Sometime after I got my PhD in 1981 it became popular for a few cosmologists to claim that physics could now eliminate the need for a God to explain the universe. It was an embarrassment to most of us because it violates the basic foundation of physics. Later, they grew to claim they could prove there is no God. Of course, discovering the universe is open and not closed never deterred them even though this result would seem to be so fundamental to their arguments.

I've not claimed that I or anyone can prove one theology or another. That is not the realm of science. I have only told you that many of us who have spent our adult lives in the pursuit of science retain a faith in a spiritual world. Take that for what it is worth.

But if you insinuate that we allow our belief in something outside science to contaminate our work, well that just earns you a big FU!

[leikec]

Re: Discuss

But if you insinuate that we allow our belief in something outside science to contaminate our work, well that just earns you a big FU!

I’m certainly not implying that, and hopefully you didn’t take that away from reading my post…

Jeff C

[gypsie]

Re: Discuss

I sure as hell don't want you working on my car, or fixing my air conditioning.

Or prescribing drugs.


At a venue I worked in once we had a series of talks and Dawkins gave one.
He banged on about how Aristotle had ruined the world and that all this science skepticism was his fault. I couldn't reconcile his opinion, it really didn't make sense. Then eventually he happened upon 'shadows on a cave wall' and I realised he was actually talking about Plato and didn't know. He had such a fan crowd around him I couldn't get a discrete enough moment to let him know that Aristotle had invented statistical analysis, and he'd probably be a true suporter if he had his facts straightened up a little.

Everytime I hear his name now I think of words like Charlatan, and Show-Pony. Which is unfair, he is smart and does pose interesting questions in the popular sphere.

Aliens would have digital genetics. Is that a function of genetics or our tools?

[CWSmith]

Re: Discuss

I’m certainly not implying that, and hopefully you didn’t take that away from reading my post…

Jeff C

No, Jeff, and thank you.

[gypsie]

Re: Discuss

There is, as far as I can tell, roughly the same amount of scientific proof for the existence of god as there is for the existence of Bigfoot.

There's a photo of God?

Bigfoot.jpg

[Hallam]

Re: Discuss

That's an impressive catalog of stirring. Are you angling for Ssssstirrer of the Month?

Interesting it came across that way as I was not intentionally stirring. Maybe it just comes naturally?

[Hallam]

Re: Discuss

Empiricism works. The alternatives simply do not.

OTOH, it's not sufficient for some things. But I completely agree about Plato. A long time ago, somone told me that all of western philosophy is an argument between Platonists and Aristotelians. It's not far wrong, and like almost every engineer, I'm firmly in the latter camp (although of course Aristotle got some things ludicrously wrong).

To clarify my position, I was not maintaining that empiricism does not work nor that Dawkins or anyone else is misguided in the persuit of knowledge via empiricism. What I am maintaining and exploring further is that the empirical method to the exclusion of other possibilities is the only option to the gaining of knowledge. As a simple illustration I see the gaining of knowledge represented as two circles next to one another with an area overlapping, one circle pertains to empirical methods, the other circle for other methods or ways for the pursuit of knowledge.

My mind continually entertains me on this subject as I hope to have an open mind to many possibilities and some aspects to the thought wanderings are interesting to persue.

Maybe for the sake of clarity this is somewhat a distraction but as an example, with the scientific method and the use of a placebo in testing, how do scientists measure the psychological effectiveness of the placebo given that mental attitude / state has a positive or negative effect on health.
The power of what can be seen as a symbolic gesture can lead to the death of an individual as seen with the Australian aboriginal practice of pointing the bone as a form of corporal punishment for crime committed in their law.

So getting back to Dawkins, my problem with his position is i regard it as dogmatic in that he refuses to entertain the possibility that not there are other possibilities for the gaining of knowledge than those of empiricism. Empiricism works but so do other factors.

[Mrleft88]

Re: Discuss

The answer is: If you're not human how do you know the things that humans claim to know. And inversely, as humans, how do we know that the animals don't know what we know. The obvious answer is: We don't.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

So getting back to Dawkins, my problem with his position is i regard it as dogmatic in that he refuses to entertain the possibility that not there are other possibilities for the gaining of knowledge than those of empiricism. Empiricism works but so do other factors.

OK - you may be right. So how do you tell whether these 'other methods' produce accurate information or not? Empirically-based knowledge can be tested, and disproved if we get it wrong. How do you know if an idea not backed by empirical evidence is true, or just something people made up?

[skuthorp]

Re: Discuss

It's not a quote. I was trying to emphasize the point he obviously makes time and again.

As for the rest, I work in a building with about 50 PhDs and a thousand years of combined research experience. I have over 40 years myself. We are Christians, Jews, Muslems, atheists, agnostics, and just about every thing else you can imagine. You say that if science can't measure it, then it does not exist? We should believe you why? You are just restating the prejudices and assumptions of Dawkins.

The BELIEF exists all right, it's killed millions and comforted millions. But as to it's actual existence…. I suppose you could put it in the 'I think therefore I am' basket?

[gypsie]

Re: Discuss

Ultimately it needs to be empirically demonstrated to be convince the masses.

In the meantime rationalism does a good job when it comes to making a telecscope so we can studying other galaxies, or telling us how to build machines that can detect a Higgs boson particle. We still use newtons physics even though we know, empirically, that it fails in certain situations (like the really really small). Even his 'Law' of entropy is, after rational deduction, actually only a probability. To prove it empirically we'd have to make time go backwards.

[skuthorp]

Re: Discuss

"Ultimately it needs to be empirically demonstrated to be convince the masses."

god botherers don't seem to have much trouble with this. Sheeple are always with us.

[lupussonic]

Re: Discuss

You say that if science can't measure it, then it does not exist? We should believe you why?

No one is questioning that belief or faith exists, it obviously does. What is in question scientifically is the existence of what the faith or belief purports to exist.

Personally I find it astounding that scientists of any type can also be religious. I really do not understand how the empirical can exist in tandem with the fuzzy maybes.